Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 18th Dec 2012 00:03 UTC
Microsoft Microsoft has just responded to Google's move regarding Exchange ActiveSync. Sadly, instead of addressing the very real problems consumers are about to face, Microsoft starts talking about switching to Outlook.com.
Thread beginning with comment 545637
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by Laurence on Tue 18th Dec 2012 12:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
Laurence
Member since:
2007-03-26

Absolute Rubbish major parts of the ASP.NET stack is Open Source now.

I can't speak about ASP.NET specifically, but the .NET is only just open enough to make some .NET applications barely run. However closed so much that applications are buggy or even unusable because of major features being unavailable.

One great example of this is the DRM extensions; and thus the reason why Netflix, Lovefilm and so on cannot run on Linux (albeit not without running native Windows libraries on WINE).

What's more, .NET was invented because MS couldn't play ball with Java (see below).

OOXML is an ISO standard,

OOXML was written because MS wanted to lock people into MS Office but were forced to use an open standard by the EU.

If Microsoft really cared about open standards, they'd have used ODF like nearly every one of their competitors do. Instead, they create their own incompatible standard that nobody else uses but them.


C# is a ISO standard ...

C# is another example of MS creating a new standard to trash an existing standard. In this case .NET was invented to trash Java (though C# / .NET has evolved since). What's more, .NET was only developed after MS got sued by Sun for releasing their own incompatible Java run times.

If MS cared about standards, they'd have released a Sun Java compatible IDE like Borland had.


I could go on.

Please do, because every one of your examples demonstrates how MS had shunned established standards ;)

None of the web browsers had any decent support for standards til 2009.

Competition from Firefox didn't make them adhere to standards, Firefox 1 and 2 were hardly standards compliant.

Firefox 1 & 2 were significantly more standard compliant than IE (hence why I used Phoenix & Firebird) and Firefox 3 was released in 2006. Plus there was Opera and kHTML-based browsers. Hell, even webkit was released in 2005, nearly half a decade before you claimed the competition began.

So I really don't know where you pulled the '2009' figure from, but it's grossly inaccurate.

Edited 2012-12-18 12:43 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 11

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by sisora on Tue 18th Dec 2012 12:57 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
sisora Member since:
2011-08-26

I agree with you. I still don't understand why .net is not open sourced yet. I understand about Windows or Office. But why .net is not open source yet?
Open sourcing it is not going to affect their business anyway. Even in case of Asp.net MVC is open source but Asp.net is not. Confusing.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by lucas_maximus on Tue 18th Dec 2012 13:01 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Because Enterprise customers and other businesses build apps against .NET version X. It is the same reason why they produce IE, their customers want a browser with a stable set of features.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by ze_jerkface on Fri 21st Dec 2012 08:49 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
ze_jerkface Member since:
2012-06-22

But why .net is not open source yet?
Open sourcing it is not going to affect their business anyway.


They are paranoid about their enterprise profits which is where .NET is heavily used.

Even in case of Asp.net MVC is open source but Asp.net is not. Confusing.


It's mostly a trick play to attract LAMP developers. Open sourcing MVC is a low risk to their business model. It is related to MVC being a poor fit for existing client .NET applications. They didn't suddenly find the open source gospel for a single technology.

Disclaimer: I am skeptical of Microsoft, open source gospel, and women.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by lucas_maximus on Tue 18th Dec 2012 13:00 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I can't speak about ASP.NET specifically,


Well they aren't the same thing then are they?

but the .NET is only just open enough to make some .NET applications barely run. However closed so much that applications are buggy or even unusable because of major features being unavailable.


What are you on about?

One great example of this is the DRM extensions; and thus the reason why Netflix, Lovefilm and so on cannot run on Linux (albeit not without running native Windows libraries on WINE).


Again, I dunno what this has to do with parts of ASP.NET being Open sourced.

What's more, .NET was invented because MS couldn't play ball with Java (see below).


So?

OOXML was written because MS wanted to lock people into MS Office but were forced to use an open standard by the EU.

If Microsoft really cared about open standards, they'd have used ODF like nearly every one of their competitors do. Instead, they create their own incompatible standard that nobody else uses but them.


Well the de-facto standard is MS Office, so any competitor that wants to be able to read the same files need to support that or get out of the market.

Sun trying to make people use ODF was a silly move.

C# is another example of MS creating a new standard to trash an existing standard. In this case .NET was invented to trash Java (though C# / .NET has evolved since).


C# version 1.0 was a superior language to Java, Properties alone in the language make it vastly superior as well as the better designed DateTime libraries (two things I can think of off the top of my head).

C# is Java Improved.

What's more, .NET was only developed after MS got sued by Sun for releasing their own incompatible Java run times.


One thing so far is true at least.

If MS cared about standards, they'd have released a Sun Java compatible IDE like Borland had.


Borland Java IDEs were crap, thank goodness they didn't

Please do, because every one of your examples demonstrates how MS had shunned established standards ;)


What established standards? A Document standard on an Office suite with a quite a small user base and a programming language developed by the same people that wanted the said document standards.

Firefox 1 & 2 were significantly more standard compliant than IE. Plus there was Opera, and kHTML-based browsers (even webkit was released in 98, a year before you claimed the competition began)


KHTML and Opera have always had low market share and aren't significant enough to be relevant to the
conversation.

Firefox 1 was more standards compliant than IE6 because it was newer. What the OP always misses is that the reason people moved to it was nothing to do with standards compliance and the fact that at the time it was a better browser with more features.

2009 was when IE8 got released and was the first browser to support CSS 2.1 and XHTML 1.1 properly (I am sure you bring up Opera, but I don't see them as a serious competitor to the other browsers in Market share).

Edited 2012-12-18 13:04 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by Laurence on Tue 18th Dec 2012 13:40 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

I see you've resorted to the "if you can't counter argument, then change the argument" method of trolling the interwebs.

Well the de-facto standard is MS Office, so any competitor that wants to be able to read the same files need to support that or get out of the market.

You're now moving the goal posts as 'de facto standard' isn't the same as 'open standard'. You were arguing about open standards.


Sun trying to make people use ODF was a silly move.

...and Google, IBM, KDE and plenty others I can't be bothered to list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument#Application_support

ODF support was one second to MS's own proprietary formats. So if Microsoft cared about open standards, then they'd have switched to an established and widely supported format instead of creating their own one from scratch.

C# version 1.0 was a superior language to Java, Properties alone in the language make it vastly superior as well as the better designed DateTime libraries (two things I can think of off the top of my head).

Weird, I seem to recall that .NET v1 stank (and back then I was 100% a Windows user and developer). Though I'll grant you that things have improved massively over the years. I quite enjoy using .NET these days.

However technical merits of C# aside, we're talking about open standards. C# was invented to break established standards.

Borland Java IDEs were crap, thank goodness they didn't

You're obviously too young to remember what life was like before MS's monopoly. Borland's IDEs used to be second to none. It's 'only' in 10 / 15 years that MS had overtaken Borland.

However that's besides the point as you're now arguing about the quality of the IDE, which absolutely nothing to do with the open standards of languages.

What established standards? A Document standard on an Office suite with a quite a small user base and a programming language developed by the same people that wanted the said document standards.

I guess if you've only ever used MS technology then you're bound to be ignorant to the rest of the IT industry and their established standards ;)

KHTML and Opera have always had low market share and aren't significant enough to be relevant to the conversation.

You're hardly one to comment on the relevance of example given the number of times you've changed the argument to suit your bias.

Firefox 1 was more standards compliant than IE6 because it was newer.

Even IE7 lacked backed standards features that FF1 supported.


2009 was when IE8 got released and was the first browser to support CSS 2.1 and XHTML 1.1 properly (I am sure you bring up Opera, but I don't see them as a serious competitor to the other browsers in Market share).

when talking about standard compliance, you can't just exclude figures that disprove your point, simply because of market share. That's just a whole new level of narrow-mindedness.

What's more, you're just picking two arbitrary specifications chosen specifically because IE happened get there first. However when you look at the overall performance (eg using ACID as a benchmark), you'll see that IE was consistently one of the last browsers to meet standards (and that's even excluding Opera!)

Reply Parent Score: 10

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by JAlexoid on Fri 21st Dec 2012 00:52 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Well the de-facto standard is MS Office, so any competitor that wants to be able to read the same files need to support that or get out of the market.

Sun trying to make people use ODF was a silly move


It may have been a silly move, but it was to break single vendor lock in. Which OOXML was countering, and successfully countered. Result? Single vendor lock in!

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by Nelson on Tue 18th Dec 2012 18:19 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


I can't speak about ASP.NET specifically, but the .NET is only just open enough to make some .NET applications barely run. However closed so much that applications are buggy or even unusable because of major features being unavailable.


Says you. The Mono team disagrees and has heavily praised Microsoft opening up the various ASP.NET stacks. They were integrated into the Mono codebase in days.

That is a textbook example of open source.


One great example of this is the DRM extensions; and thus the reason why Netflix, Lovefilm and so on cannot run on Linux (albeit not without running native Windows libraries on WINE).


Yeah, because Netflix was going to take that sitting down, right? No.

For all the whining people do about DRM, they sure do clamor for it. Of course, the real reason is they need something to beat MS over the head with, and this is low hanging fruit.

Why don't you talk about instances where having Moonlight on Linux furthered the experience? The Olympics in Beijing being a major one, without Moonlight it wouldn't have been watchable on Linux, period.

Microsoft made documentation and test suites available to the Mono team ahead of time. Everything else is an ECMA standard.


What's more, .NET was invented because MS couldn't play ball with Java (see below).


This is true, but I think the blame is overblown. At the time, and you need to be old enough to remember this, but Java was terrible when C# came out. It was still interpreted, for crying out loud.

C# came and provided clear and concise improvements, and more importantly, the tooling around C# was second to none. I mean, Anders was at the helm. He was the genius from Borland, Microsoft's major strategic win.


OOXML was written because MS wanted to lock people into MS Office but were forced to use an open standard by the EU.

If Microsoft really cared about open standards, they'd have used ODF like nearly every one of their competitors do. Instead, they create their own incompatible standard that nobody else uses but them.


What does this matter? They're two competing standards (Nothing wrong with that) which have arguable strengths and weaknesses. Both which I think are slightly above either of us to get into too much detail for.

OOXML and ODF are massive, sprawling, complex formats. Its hard to standardize something like that correctly. ODF reflects design decisions made to better support OO and OOXML reflects design decisions made to better support Office.

WebGL is like the OOXML of the web. A "standard" (eh) made around the technological needs of a specific technology. Just like Microsoft rejects the OpenGLisms in WebGL, Open Office people reject the MS Office-isms in OOXML.


C# is another example of MS creating a new standard to trash an existing standard. In this case .NET was invented to trash Java (though C# / .NET has evolved since). What's more, .NET was only developed after MS got sued by Sun for releasing their own incompatible Java run times.


C# was a quantum leap over Java when it was released. Sincerely someone who used both at launch. PDC01 was a game changer. Absolutely. No doubt about it.

MS is damned if they do, damned if they don't. I guarantee you'd be the first one complaining if it wasn't an open standard.


If MS cared about standards, they'd have released a Sun Java compatible IDE like Borland had.


I hope you're joking. By the time .NET launched, Borland IDEs were floundering. I sincerely am questioning your recollection of events.


Firefox 1 & 2 were significantly more standard compliant than IE (hence why I used Phoenix & Firebird) and Firefox 3 was released in 2006. Plus there was Opera and kHTML-based browsers. Hell, even webkit was released in 2005, nearly half a decade before you claimed the competition began.


IE6s problem was not intentional deviation from standards. IE6 when released was the single most standards compliant browser. The problem arose from a lack of developer attention and a stagnation.

IE6 is what happens when IE implements a bunch of Working Draft standards. Microsoft is only guilty of virtually abandoning IE until Vista was released. That's five years.


So I really don't know where you pulled the '2009' figure from, but it's grossly inaccurate.


Browsers still weren't completely CSS2.1 compliant when IE8 came out, for fucks sake. People were still excited about browsers passing ACID2 and ACID3 tests.

News flash, all browsers have ridiculous quirks. IEs are just the most well known.

How about the 12 implementations of the Flexible Box module out there across all browsers. Is that adherence to standards?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by Laurence on Thu 20th Dec 2012 11:36 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Yeah, because Netflix was going to take that sitting down, right? No.

I don't follow that statement. The WINE work around was officially published by Netflix and the reason they use Silverlight is because MPAA demanded it.

I hope you're joking. By the time .NET launched, Borland IDEs were floundering. I sincerely am questioning your recollection of events.

Those are two unrelated points.
Yeah Borland were struggling at that point, but that doesn't mean that the languages themselves were bad; just that Borland's IDEs were sub-par. Given my point was about the language and run time environments used by MS, it's somewhat moot how good or bad Borlands IDE was. Though let's be honest, even as late as then, Borland were only sub-par to Visual Studio.

IE6s problem was not intentional deviation from standards.


I was talking about earlier versions of IE when I mentioned that.


Microsoft is only guilty of virtually abandoning IE until Vista was released. That's five years.

I'd already covered that.

MS killed the competition by implementing their own 'standards' in the mid 90s. Then left the market to stagnate for so long that the standards IE6 conformed to were out of date.

Browsers still weren't completely CSS2.1 compliant when IE8 came out, for fucks sake. People were still excited about browsers passing ACID2 and ACID3 tests.

News flash, all browsers have ridiculous quirks. IEs are just the most well known.

How about the 12 implementations of the Flexible Box module out there across all browsers. Is that adherence to standards?

I'd also raised those points as well. I'm not by any means saying that other browsers are not guilty. But IE has been the worst offender - by far.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by ze_jerkface on Fri 21st Dec 2012 08:02 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
ze_jerkface Member since:
2012-06-22

However closed so much that applications are buggy or even unusable because of major features being unavailable.

Netflix, Lovefilm and so on cannot run on Linux (albeit not without running native Windows libraries on WINE).


The applications are not buggy and only unusable because Netflix is not designed to work in Linux. The problem isn't .NET, it does exactly what it is supposed to.

What's more, .NET was invented because MS couldn't play ball with Java (see below).


If Java didn't run and look like crap in Windows then .NET never would have gained traction. Java is OK now but back then it looked awful. That's partly due to Sun insisting that it didn't use native controls or cleartype. Even today it still doesn't look great which is why it is rarely used for shinkwrap applications.

If Microsoft really cared about open standards, they'd have used ODF like nearly every one of their competitors do.


My experience leads me to believe that the truth is somewhere in the middle. I agree that Microsoft does not care about open standards but the ODF was not built to handle everything in Excel. There would have been a conflict of interest regardless since MS would want the format designed around Office.

OOXML is an open standard, the issue is more that LibreOffice/OpenOffice developers do not care about providing 100% compatibility. I could even dig up a link where one of them states this explicitly.

What's more, .NET was only developed after MS got sued by Sun for releasing their own incompatible Java run times.


That goes back to Java running like crap in Windows, which was the fault of Sun. Windows developers were ready to embrace Java but Sun was stubborn about non-native controls and the JRE.

Reply Parent Score: 2